him the judge of his own qualifications. You cannot do this, but you must make all other candidates the fame; which would open a door to demands without number, reafon, or right. In like manner, a poor man has a right to relief from the rich; but the mode, feason, and quantum of that relief, who shall contribute to it, or how much, are not ascertained. Yet these points must be ascertained, before a claim to relief can be profecuted by force. For to allow the poor to ascertain them for themselves, would be to expofe property to fo many of these claims, that it would lofe its value, or cease indeed to be property. The fame obfervation holds of all other cafes of imperfect rights; not to mention, that in the inftances of gratitude, affection, rever. ence, and the like, force is excluded by the very idea of the duty, which must be voluntary, or not at all.

Wherever the right is imperfect, the correfpond. ing obligation is fo too. I am obliged to prefer the best candidate, to relieve the poor, be grateful to my benefactors, take care of my children, and reverence my parents; but in all thefe cafes, my obli gation, like their right, is imperfect.

I call these obligations "imperfect," in conformity to the established language of writers upon the fubject. The term, however, feems ill chofen on this account, that it leads many to imagine, that there is lefs guilt in the violation of an imperfect obligation, than of a perfect one; which is a ground. lefs notion. For an obligation being perfect or imperfect, determines only whether violence may or may not be employed to enforce it; and determines nothing else. The degree of guilt incurred by violating the obligation is a different thing. It is determined by circumstances altogether independentTM of this distinction. A man, who by a partial, prejudiced, or corrupt vote, disappoints a worthy candi. date of a ftation in life, upon which his hopes, pof

L

fibly, or livelihood depends, and who thereby griev oufly difcourages merit and emulation in others, commits, I am perfuaded, a much greater crime, than if he filched a book out of a library, or picked a pocket of a handkerchief; though, in the one cafe, he violates only an imperfect right, in the other a perfect one.

As pofitive precepts are often indeterminate in their extent, and as the indeterminateness of an obligation is that which makes it imperfect; it comes to pafs, that pofitive precepts commonly produce an imperfect obligation.

Negative precepts or prohibitions, being generally precife, conftitute accordingly a perfect obligation. The fifth commandment is pofitive, and the duty which refults from it is imperfect.

The fixth commandment is negative, and impofes a perfect obligation.

Religion and virtue find their principal exercise amongst the imperfect obligations; the laws of civil fociety taking pretty good care of the reft.

Chapter XI.

THE GENERAL RIGHTS OF MANKIND.

By the General Rights of Mankind, I mean the rights, which belong to the fpecies collectively; the original stock, as I may fay, which they have fince diftributed among themselves.

These are,

I. A right to the fruits or vegetable produce of the earth.

The infenfible parts of the creation are incapable of injury; and it is nugatory to inquire into the right, where the ufe can be attended with no injury.

But it may be worth obferving, for the fake of an inference which will appear below, that, as God has created us with a want and defire of food, and provided things suited by their nature to fuftain and fat-, isfy us, we may fairly prefume, that he intended we should apply these things to that purpose.

II. A right to the flesh of animals.

This is a very different claim from the former. Some excufe feems neceffary for the pain and lofs which we occafion to brutes, by reftraining them of their liberty, mutilating their bodies, and, at last, putting an end to their lives, which we fuppofe to be the whole of their existence, for our pleasure or conveniency.

The reafons alleged in vindication of this practice, are the following: that the feveral species of brutes being created to prey upon one another, affords a kind of analogy to prove that the human species were intended to feed upon them; that, if let alone, they would over-run the earth, and exclude mankind from the occupation of it; that they are requited for what they fuffer at our hands, by our care and protection.

Upon which reasons I would observe, that the analogy contended for is extremely lame; fince brutes have no power to fupport life by any other means, and fince we have; for the whole human fpecies might fubfift entirely upon fruit, pulfe, herbs, and roots, as many tribes of Hindoos actually do. The two other reafons may be valid reafons, as far as they go; for, no doubt, if man had been fupported entirely by vegetable food, a great part of thofe animals which die to furnish his table, would never have lived; but they by no means juftify our right over the lives of brutes to the extent in which we exercife. it. What danger is there, for inftance, of fish interfering with us, in the occupation of their element? Or what do we contribute to their fupport or prefer vation?

It seems to me that it would be difficult to defend this right, by any argument which the light and order of nature afford; and that we are beholden for it, to the permiffion recorded in fcripture, Gen. ix. 1, 2, 3: "And God bleffed Noah and his fons, and faid unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth; and the fear of you, and the dread of you, shall be upon every beaft of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered: every moving thing fhall be meat for you; even as the green herb, have I given you all things." To Adam and his pofterity had been granted at the creation" every green herb for meat," and nothing more. In the laft clause of the paffage now produced, the old grant is recited, and extended to the flesh of animals, "even as the green herb, have I given you all things." But this was not till after the flood; the inhabitants of the antediluvian world therefore, had no fuch permiffion that we know of. Whether they actually refrained from the flesh of animals, is another queftion. Abel, we read, was a keeper of fheep; and for what purpose he kept them, except for food, is difficult to fay, (unless it were facrifices :) might not, however, fome of the stricter fects among the antediluvians be fcrupulous as to this point? and might not Noah and his family be of this description? for it is not probable that God would publish a permiffion, to authorize a practice which had never been difputed.

Wanton, and, what is worse, studied cruelty to brutes, is certainly wrong, as coming within none of these reasons.

From reason then, or revelation, or from both together, it appears to be God Almighty's intention, that the productions of the earth fhould be applied to the fuftentation of human life. Confequently, all wafte and mifapplication of thefe productions, is

contrary to the divine intention and will, and therefore wrong, for the fame reason that any other crime is fo. Such as, what is related of William the Conqueror, the converting of twenty manors into a forest for hunting; or, which is not much better, fuffering them to continue in that state; or the letting of large tracts of land lie barren, because the owner cannot cultivate them, nor will part with them to those who can; or destroying, or fuffering to perifh, great part of an article of human proviť ion, in order to enhance the price of the remainder, which is faid to have been, till lately, the cafe with fish caught upon the English coaft; or diminishing the breed of animals, by a wanton, or improvident confumption of the young, as of the fpawn of fhellfish, or the fry of falmon, by the ufe of unlawful nets, or at improper feafons: to this head may also be referred, what is the fame evil in a smaller way, the expending of human food on fuperfluous dogs or horfes; and laftly, the reducing of the quantity in order to alter the quality, and to alter it generally for the worse; as the distillation of spirits from bread-corn, the boiling down of folid meat for fauces, effences, &c.

This feems to be the leffon which our Saviour, after his manner, inculcates, when he bids his difciples "gather up the fragments, that nothing be loft." And it opens, indeed, a new field of duty. Schemes of wealth or profit, prompt the active part of mankind to caft about how they may convert their property to the most advantage: and their own advantage, and that of the public, commonly concur. But it has not as yet entered into the minds of mankind, to reflect that it is a duty, to add what we can to the common stock of provision, by extracting out of our estates the moft they will yield; or that it is any fin to neglect this.

From the fame intention of God Almighty, we also deduce another conclufion, namely, "that noth